Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1975–1985 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Higgins v. New York State Division of Parolegreen2 sentences1982The record herein indicates that well after respondents were deemed to be aware of the rule announced in Matter of Higgins v New York State Div. of Parole (supra), they failed to utilize the Federal policy of cooperation with State prison authorities to afford petitioner a prompt final revocation hearing. 1982We noted in Matter of Higgins v New York State Div. of Parole (supra), if the parolee may be brought within the convenience and practical control of parole authorities, a prompt final revocation hearing is required (see People ex rel. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People ex rel. Walsh v. Vincent
green
2 sentences1985Walsh v Vincent, 40 NY2d 1049 ). 1978Walsh v Vincent ( 40 NY2d 1049 ), requiring a prompt final revocation hearing even though the violation of parole may have involved the commission of another crime, is controlling in New York State, rather than Moody v Daggett ( 429 US 78 ), and that the failure to conduct a prompt parole revocation hearing will lead to a restoration of parole. | 4 | 1978–1985 |
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences1980The failure to provide a final parole revocation hearing at any time since the petitioner was declared a delinquent in 1976 was prejudicial and constituted a denial of his constitutional rights (see Morrissey v Brewer, 408 US 471, 488 ; Matter of Piersma v Henderson, 44 NY2d 982 ). 1978In Morrissey v Brewer (supra), the Supreme Court of the United States merely held that due process required a prompt preliminary hearing (which was waived by this petitioner) and a prompt final revocation hearing with minimum procedural requirements prior to the revocation of parole. | 2 | 1978–1980 |
People Ex Rel. Schmidt v. La Vallee
neutral
2 sentences1979Schmidt v La Vallee, 39 NY2d 886 ). 1976Schmidt v La Vallee, 39 NY2d 886 ), he has at this point in time received such a hearing. | 2 | 1976–1979 |
Moody v. Daggett
green
1 sentence1978Walsh v Vincent ( 40 NY2d 1049 ), requiring a prompt final revocation hearing even though the violation of parole may have involved the commission of another crime, is controlling in New York State, rather than Moody v Daggett ( 429 US 78 ), and that the failure to conduct a prompt parole revocation hearing will lead to a restoration of parole. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People ex rel. Royster v. Bombard
neutral
1 sentence1977In reliance upon Royster, the same court in Matter of Edge v Regan ( 55 AD2d 940 ) has held that where the parolee has not been given a prompt final revocation hearing and is still being held in jail on an intervening sentence, the appropriate remedy is an order directing that the parolee-petitioner be restored to his former parole as soon as he completes serving any time owed on the current conviction. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Beattie v. New York State Board of Parole
neutral
1 sentence1975In Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole ( 47 AD2d 656 ) this court said: "Here we are merely directing that petitioner be afforded an immediate hearing because that can be done without affecting his rights. | 1 | 1975–1975 |